President Obama criticized Mitt Romney recently for trying to run against a fictional Obama, but if any candidate has a chance of winning this election, who better than a fictional Obama? The real Obama, after all, has overseen the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Oh well, he wanted to be compared to FDR. Favorably, one assumes, but we'll just leave it to the sycophants in the media to make up the difference.
Fictional Obama was on display quite a bit Tuesday night in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a Barack Obama who grew up poor, dug through dumpsters for furniture and was stuck with just one pair of shoes a half size too small as a law school graduate. Here was a Barack raised by his hard-working grandmother in poverty-stricken middle class, with no radical influences to be found. Here was a president who cared so much about Americans struggling to find employment that he hunched over his desk late at night reading letters, determination in his voice to turn this economy around. Here was a Barack Obama who wanted all of us to succeed, to fulfill our wildest dreams!
Perhaps such a stirring speech with so many heartbreaking stories would win us over if the real Barack Obama hadn't been elected president four years ago. But we know better. We've seen the real Barack Obama up close and personal and he doesn't match the fictional Obama that the First Lady is selling.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the First Lady for trying. Who wants to go back to being picked up in a rusted-out car when you can take separate planes to Hawaii or jet to Spain, Aspen, and Martha's Vineyard with a full entourage of staff, friends, and family members on the taxpayer dime? Not that a rusted-out car would be waiting for the First Couple should Fictional Obama lose the election. I'm sure they could at least afford a Chevy Volt or two.
The Real Barack Obama, of course, is who we are talking about electing, and his tenure has been disappointing to say the least. If the Real Obama wants us to succeed in achieving our dreams, he certainly hasn't shown it. Instead, he has said about successful businessmen, "at a certain point you've made enough money" and "there will be a time for profits later." In the meantime, risk your savings and lose your shirts for the greater good, because "if you've got a business - you didn't build that."
The Fictional Obama may be a family man who dotes on his daughters, but the Real Obama has a Kenyan half-brother living in poverty and doesn't want anyone "being punished with a baby." Which is probably why this year's Democratic National Convention is as anti-family as Americans have ever seen. If the contraception talk keeps up for two more days, the networks will have to change the TV rating to "MA" for mature. And it certainly didn't help when they wrote support for abortion on demand into their party platform - even at taxpayer expense - to go along with taxpayer funded sterilizations and sex change operations, removing any mention of God or God-given rights.
Sure, Fictional Obama is deeply concerned about the 11.5% real unemployment and even the fictional, Enron-style-bookkeeping 8.3% unemployment rate, but Real Obama hasn't met with his Jobs Council in eight months and thinks "the private sector is doing fine." And while Fictional Obama may stay up late focused on the job like a laser, Real Obama has set a record for golf outings and fundraisers, not to mention that time he walked out in the middle of a press conference to attend a party, leaving Bill Clinton in charge (don't worry, the interns had the day off).
Essentially, we elected Fictional Obama the first time around. But he was new on the scene. He spoke eloquently. And he promised to cut the deficit in half. Obama promised real change in 2008, but that turned out to be fiction, too, as our annual deficit has failed to sink below the one trillion dollar mark during his presidency. That's an extra five trillion dollars of very real money added to the debt in less than one term.
It's all too fitting that we should have a record number of fact-checkers in an era where fiscal reality is ignored and personal narrative is king. Meanwhile, Democrats with the aid of a complicit media, try to convince us that Fictional Obama is real, and Real Obama is just a figment of our racist imagination.
My head is spinning.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Illegally Yours
President Obama's lawless executive order to extend visas (or defer deportation) for some illegal immigrants went into effect yesterday, and media outlets were quick to rush down and interview the applying non-citizens. Most of them seemed nice enough and I don't know a soul who would suggest they don't bleed like the rest of us. It's not hard to feel sympathy for an individual who through no fault of their own was brought here illegally, has since assimilated, attends school or holds full-time employment, and feels American down to their very core.
Good for them. Except the president has skirted the law to help them skirt the law with a thrown together policy that is ultimately destined to fail.
For one, circumventing Congress to change the law is a breach of power and most likely unconstitutional (with this Supreme Court, you never know, but its certainly not a policy that gives merit to representative democracy). The immigrants who sign up for this amnesty program could be signing up for quick deportation once President Obama's executive order is revoked or overturned. As it should be.
Secondly, any criteria to apply for "legal" illegal status is dubious at best and creates the potential for gross fraud and abuse. After all, how does one acquire the legal paperwork to prove they illegally entered the country during the qualified time to be deemed acceptably illegal? And if you came here illegally outside the qualified time frame, why not simply pretend to meet the criteria? How do you disprove such a claim? So long as you're under thirty and have established a stateside address, what racist would doubt you haven't lived and worked here for the required five years?
There's also the issue of those who are over thirty but were brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. Why do they get denied the opportunity of their younger cousins and siblings? Are we splitting up families now? The kids are alright but the parents have to go?
This isn't sound policy or even an acceptable substitute for the DREAM Act. It's a nightmare for immigration enforcement, a nightmare for the courts, and a nightmare for businesses trying to follow the law and hire long-term help. Which is why laws are best passed through the constitutional and legislative process, not made up willy-nilly by the wave of a leader's scepter to woo votes in the midst of a political campaign.
Good for them. Except the president has skirted the law to help them skirt the law with a thrown together policy that is ultimately destined to fail.
For one, circumventing Congress to change the law is a breach of power and most likely unconstitutional (with this Supreme Court, you never know, but its certainly not a policy that gives merit to representative democracy). The immigrants who sign up for this amnesty program could be signing up for quick deportation once President Obama's executive order is revoked or overturned. As it should be.
Secondly, any criteria to apply for "legal" illegal status is dubious at best and creates the potential for gross fraud and abuse. After all, how does one acquire the legal paperwork to prove they illegally entered the country during the qualified time to be deemed acceptably illegal? And if you came here illegally outside the qualified time frame, why not simply pretend to meet the criteria? How do you disprove such a claim? So long as you're under thirty and have established a stateside address, what racist would doubt you haven't lived and worked here for the required five years?
There's also the issue of those who are over thirty but were brought here illegally by their parents twenty years ago. Why do they get denied the opportunity of their younger cousins and siblings? Are we splitting up families now? The kids are alright but the parents have to go?
This isn't sound policy or even an acceptable substitute for the DREAM Act. It's a nightmare for immigration enforcement, a nightmare for the courts, and a nightmare for businesses trying to follow the law and hire long-term help. Which is why laws are best passed through the constitutional and legislative process, not made up willy-nilly by the wave of a leader's scepter to woo votes in the midst of a political campaign.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Where Obama Fails, Curiosity Succeeds
For once, the president was understated, maybe because he has been cutting funding for the space program significantly. A point of national pride? This wasn't just another Olympic moment for Team USA on the balance beam. This landing represents a far greater achievement that will pay huge dividends in terms of both territorial exploration (think Lewis and Clark) and national security (dominance in space when the Chinese are trying to overtake us).
Too bad President Obama plans to slash the Mars program's budget from $587 million to just $188 million by 2015, proving he's willing to spend more on failed boondoggles like Solyndra than programs with proven track records. If only NASA was founded by one of his campaign bundlers.
It illustrates a serious problem. Barack Obama lacks the creative vision we usually demand of our leaders. We all know he's a big spender. He's been borrowing, printing, and spending money like there's no tomorrow. But he has been far too unwilling to invest in endeavors that truly illustrate the best of man's potential.
How can a successful program that has so many future implications for advancing American interests get left behind by a president whose campaign slogan is "Forward"? How does a bloated and ever expanding budget somehow cut one of the few programs that improves lives with technology, demonstrates defense capabilities, and captures the world's imagination?
With decisions like these, no wonder our nation has lost its moxy.
Look at where Barack Obama is interested in moving us away from and what he is interested in moving us towards, and you see a leader seriously lacking in intellectual curiosity.
Space is supposed to be the final frontier, where nations dream to soar. Barack Obama has turned NASA's attention away from space exploration and towards more earthly endeavors like Muslim outreach and Al Gore's global warming alarmism.
If President Obama doesn't have a passing interest in new frontiers, maybe it's because he's been molded by a dogma mostly concerned with controlling old ones. Or perhaps outer space is just too vast to redistribute.
Frontiers, by their very definition, are places unbridled by man. They are the unknown, the unsettled, the wild and the free, places of unlimited potential and possibilty. Is there any place a centralized planner would find less appealing?
America has always worked as a nation because we attract the dreamers and explorers, the risk takers, those willing to give up the banality of the old world for new opportunities. It has always been the place where you proved yourself through ingenuity and independent spirit. Throughout his life experience, President Obama has demonstrated neither.
We are a nation of Frontiers, first the east coast and then the west, and when all that land was settled - space, computers, technology, and beyond. An America that doesn't encourage pursuit of new frontiers and doesn't celebrate going boldly where no man or woman's gone before is hardly America at all. For all the problems Barack Obama complains about inheriting, they were at least American ideals. But they don't seem to suit him and so he's going to leave us with less.
This is how a nation built on hard work and imagination is left only to imagine its once great potential while a naval-gazing president tells us to keep dreaming smaller. You want free contraception and food stamps, no problem. You want to discover new worlds, break boundaries, and explore new horizons? Forget about it.
Curiosity killed the cat, but President Obama has done his best to kill curiosity.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
What the Colorado Shooting Says About Us
Absolutely nothing. It says only that one individual living behind a mask, secretly in contempt of society, was sick and deranged enough to premeditate a mass murder of innocent children and adults. He deserves the death penalty.
Certainly, there will be handwringing and political discussions about what his means about American society, as if his lone act of craziness can be seen in some larger context. It can't.
There will be groups that will call for less violence in movies and video games, seeing how the mass murderer seemed to be emulating the Joker from the Batman movies. Yet in most cities, there is more violence on the nightly news. There will be calls for more money to address mental health issues, although the low-profile killer studying medicine would have never been eligible for it.
There will be groups calling for gun laws, more restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing ammunition. Keep in mind, though, that some of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. See Chicago, for example, where the number wounded in a weekend can reach as high as the Aurora, Colorado theater count did early Friday morning.
The Unabomber never needed a gun. Nor did Timothy McVeigh to devastate that community. Sick individuals, isolated from their neighbors and peers, will always be a threat to society. There are no politics behind it. There is no reason behind it. There is no protection from it. There is just evil.
It would be nice for once if the media chose not to sensationalize this story and moved forward without another word of the shooter's "motivation" or "family life" until it's time to report on his trial. For now, there are only victims -lives cut tragically short - and that's where the focus should be.
I, for once, find myself agreeing with the president. Let's focus on the precious moments we all have together with our loved ones. I'm pretty sure it's the one thing the victims would tell us is most important after all.
Certainly, there will be handwringing and political discussions about what his means about American society, as if his lone act of craziness can be seen in some larger context. It can't.
There will be groups that will call for less violence in movies and video games, seeing how the mass murderer seemed to be emulating the Joker from the Batman movies. Yet in most cities, there is more violence on the nightly news. There will be calls for more money to address mental health issues, although the low-profile killer studying medicine would have never been eligible for it.
There will be groups calling for gun laws, more restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing ammunition. Keep in mind, though, that some of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates. See Chicago, for example, where the number wounded in a weekend can reach as high as the Aurora, Colorado theater count did early Friday morning.
The Unabomber never needed a gun. Nor did Timothy McVeigh to devastate that community. Sick individuals, isolated from their neighbors and peers, will always be a threat to society. There are no politics behind it. There is no reason behind it. There is no protection from it. There is just evil.
It would be nice for once if the media chose not to sensationalize this story and moved forward without another word of the shooter's "motivation" or "family life" until it's time to report on his trial. For now, there are only victims -lives cut tragically short - and that's where the focus should be.
I, for once, find myself agreeing with the president. Let's focus on the precious moments we all have together with our loved ones. I'm pretty sure it's the one thing the victims would tell us is most important after all.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Stupid Yahoo Headline of the Day
FREE VOTER ID STILL BURDENSOME FOR POOR PEOPLE
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect much from the barely employed yahoo headline writer, stuck between living at home and trying to find permanent work with a journalism degree in the Obama economy. But I do expect better arguments from so-called left-wing advocacy groups.
From the article:
Of course, signing up for free housing, free health care, free food stamps, free cell phones, and other assorted handouts doesn't seem to be too much of a burden. Meanwhile, under Obamacare every American is required to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, but you won't hear about that burden from left-wing groups - probably because it's mostly a burden faced by the self-employed middle class.
It's also worth mentioning that most states with voter ID laws allow seniors and the disabled to request mail-in ballots so they don't have to leave their homes. Does anyone else really have an excuse?
Just so we've got this straight now: Taxes on middle class families and small businesses = not a burden. Free IDs for the poor = huge burden. That's the nonsense the Left preaches today. And yet they seem surprised when they're ridiculed.
Don't get me wrong. I don't expect much from the barely employed yahoo headline writer, stuck between living at home and trying to find permanent work with a journalism degree in the Obama economy. But I do expect better arguments from so-called left-wing advocacy groups.
From the article:
Nearly 500,000 eligible voters in these 10 states do not have access to a vehicle and live over 10 miles from the closest office where they can obtain the type of identification required to vote in their state, according to the center's study, which came out this week.
Of course, signing up for free housing, free health care, free food stamps, free cell phones, and other assorted handouts doesn't seem to be too much of a burden. Meanwhile, under Obamacare every American is required to purchase health insurance or pay a tax, but you won't hear about that burden from left-wing groups - probably because it's mostly a burden faced by the self-employed middle class.
It's also worth mentioning that most states with voter ID laws allow seniors and the disabled to request mail-in ballots so they don't have to leave their homes. Does anyone else really have an excuse?
Just so we've got this straight now: Taxes on middle class families and small businesses = not a burden. Free IDs for the poor = huge burden. That's the nonsense the Left preaches today. And yet they seem surprised when they're ridiculed.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
American Liberty on its Death Bed?
Welcome to Obamaland, where the rule of law is so upside-down that the lawless are increasingly protected (see illegal immigrants, fast and furious, black panther voter intimidation, etc.) while law-abiding citizens find Uncle Sam's jackboot on their neck, their lives regulated to death. The United States of America still exists by name, but Obama's capture of free enterprise means a whole differnet country than Americans have ever know.
Sure, the motto is still the same, still fifty stars on the flag, and people still act as if nothing's changed. But just as when your favorite microbrew or independent winery gets bought out and mass produced by a megabrand with cheaper ingredients, what you once revered in the first place is suddenly missing and it never quite goes down smooth again.
ObamaCare was a massive government overreach, still is, whether one Supreme Court justice found the mechanism to call it constitutional or not. Such a radical takeover of one-sixth of the economy should require more than a razor thin margin of one party rule pushing it through in the dead of night. If you can't win one single vote from the other party, that's not obstructionism. It's a complete rejection of your idea on its merits, and such skepticism by over half of the population should be treated with deep concern and caution, not political force and name-calling.
Ah, but when you want to ram government into every facet of the individual's life, what is each decision if not political? So that now your health care decisions are political, the car you drive is political, how much energy you use is political, owning a gun is political, what your kids are taught is political, diet is political, marriage is political, etc., etc., ad nausea until there's not a free space left to stand and make a decision on your own without being judged by some nanny-statist. Obama has managed to make even following the law political, abandoning that whole quaint John Adams "Nation of laws rather than men" theory on what constitutes a free republic.
Leftists like Obama can't help but make everything the government's business except how to actually run an efficient government (say by passing a budget). Which is none of your business so don't hold him accountable, or so he hopes you won't. Thus, 100 plus rounds of golf while he bans forks at fundraisers and expands the IRS exponentially to peer into your medicine cabinet. And now the Supreme Court has legitimized this the same way the Oscars once legitimized Cher's acting. It's really too horrible for words.
There's no getting around the awful SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but perhaps even more damaging is what it means for personal property rights in this country. Guess what? Nothing is rightfully yours anymore, because this ruling gives the government the power to tell you exactly how to spend every dollar you earn. Not just the wages they tax, which they have always taken and spent as they desired (see Solyndra, Porkulus, National Endowment of the Arts). But thanks to Justice Roberts, two dyed-in-the-wool liberals (one who has admitted to not admiring the U.S. Constitution), and two Obama-appointed stooges, the government now has permission to reach their hand into your pocket or under your mattress and tell you exactly how to spend the money they didn't tax. Or face another tax. And you foolishly thought it was yours.
Our federal government can now lay claim to every dollar in your bank account. If you don't spend it in a way that they approve, well there's a tax for that. And if you can't choose to spend your hard-earned wages the way in which you desire, do you have economic freedom? Does anything really belong to you? Or does it belong to Obama's regime?
This is a crucial point and the defining reason every individual who cherishes their freedom should be outraged by the court's ruling. And further outraged that Democrats cheered and celebrated it. Our liberty was just stolen from us. No wonder progressives were tickled pink. The Supreme Court practically gave their stamp of approval to move towards Communism.
Down at the National Archives, they've replaced the helium in the hermetically-sealed case that protects our Constitution with laughing gas. Now we can finally move in the direction of Red China as Thomas Friedman always dreamed.
Mark June 28th on your calendar as the day of 'The Ruling', a day historians will look back to as the turning point from America as the land of opportunity to America as the land of tyranny. Before 'The Ruling' the individual was protected by a federal government of enumerated powers. After 'The Ruling' the state has been granted unlimited power. And the man who made the ultimate decision was appointed by a Republican president.
I have written about every wrong direction this administration has taken us for the past three years, but this is worse than even my worst-case scenarios. We can repeal ObamaCare. We can't repeal the Supreme Court's precedent. Unbelievable. What now?
Sure, the motto is still the same, still fifty stars on the flag, and people still act as if nothing's changed. But just as when your favorite microbrew or independent winery gets bought out and mass produced by a megabrand with cheaper ingredients, what you once revered in the first place is suddenly missing and it never quite goes down smooth again.
ObamaCare was a massive government overreach, still is, whether one Supreme Court justice found the mechanism to call it constitutional or not. Such a radical takeover of one-sixth of the economy should require more than a razor thin margin of one party rule pushing it through in the dead of night. If you can't win one single vote from the other party, that's not obstructionism. It's a complete rejection of your idea on its merits, and such skepticism by over half of the population should be treated with deep concern and caution, not political force and name-calling.
Ah, but when you want to ram government into every facet of the individual's life, what is each decision if not political? So that now your health care decisions are political, the car you drive is political, how much energy you use is political, owning a gun is political, what your kids are taught is political, diet is political, marriage is political, etc., etc., ad nausea until there's not a free space left to stand and make a decision on your own without being judged by some nanny-statist. Obama has managed to make even following the law political, abandoning that whole quaint John Adams "Nation of laws rather than men" theory on what constitutes a free republic.
Leftists like Obama can't help but make everything the government's business except how to actually run an efficient government (say by passing a budget). Which is none of your business so don't hold him accountable, or so he hopes you won't. Thus, 100 plus rounds of golf while he bans forks at fundraisers and expands the IRS exponentially to peer into your medicine cabinet. And now the Supreme Court has legitimized this the same way the Oscars once legitimized Cher's acting. It's really too horrible for words.
There's no getting around the awful SCOTUS decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, but perhaps even more damaging is what it means for personal property rights in this country. Guess what? Nothing is rightfully yours anymore, because this ruling gives the government the power to tell you exactly how to spend every dollar you earn. Not just the wages they tax, which they have always taken and spent as they desired (see Solyndra, Porkulus, National Endowment of the Arts). But thanks to Justice Roberts, two dyed-in-the-wool liberals (one who has admitted to not admiring the U.S. Constitution), and two Obama-appointed stooges, the government now has permission to reach their hand into your pocket or under your mattress and tell you exactly how to spend the money they didn't tax. Or face another tax. And you foolishly thought it was yours.
Our federal government can now lay claim to every dollar in your bank account. If you don't spend it in a way that they approve, well there's a tax for that. And if you can't choose to spend your hard-earned wages the way in which you desire, do you have economic freedom? Does anything really belong to you? Or does it belong to Obama's regime?
This is a crucial point and the defining reason every individual who cherishes their freedom should be outraged by the court's ruling. And further outraged that Democrats cheered and celebrated it. Our liberty was just stolen from us. No wonder progressives were tickled pink. The Supreme Court practically gave their stamp of approval to move towards Communism.
Down at the National Archives, they've replaced the helium in the hermetically-sealed case that protects our Constitution with laughing gas. Now we can finally move in the direction of Red China as Thomas Friedman always dreamed.
Mark June 28th on your calendar as the day of 'The Ruling', a day historians will look back to as the turning point from America as the land of opportunity to America as the land of tyranny. Before 'The Ruling' the individual was protected by a federal government of enumerated powers. After 'The Ruling' the state has been granted unlimited power. And the man who made the ultimate decision was appointed by a Republican president.
I have written about every wrong direction this administration has taken us for the past three years, but this is worse than even my worst-case scenarios. We can repeal ObamaCare. We can't repeal the Supreme Court's precedent. Unbelievable. What now?
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Supreme Disappointment: Did SCOTUS Just Approve the Mafia's Model of Doing Business?
There isn't much to be said about Thursday's disappointing Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare that hasn't already been said. Less than one week away from celebrating our independence on the 4th of July, we have in essence lost our independence. Fittingly, the Obama campaign will be celebrating this treasured holiday with fundraisers in France, who must be delighted at our nouveau vogue socialism.
True, the Affordable Care Act is chock full of taxes. Give Chief Justice John Roberts bonus points for noticing - even though he failed the test. How do you allow the government to tax someone for simply existing? How do you tax someone for their choice to not enter into a contract to participate in an activity? It's as if a painter shows up at your house and you say, "I don't want my house painted." And the painter says, "okay, we don't have to paint your house, but you'll have to pay the tax for us not painting your house."
Did America just adopt the Mafia's model of doing business?! It certainly appears that way.
This is more than a slippery slope towards state-controlled behavior; it's a steep cliff to tyranny. The fundamental balance between the government and the people just shifted dramatically - and its not in the favor of freedom.
A few ways progressive liberals may choose to apply the "non-compliance tax" in the future:
Are these examples extreme or far fetched? Not at all. None of them will happen this year, but with tax-and-spend Democrats in control, it doesn't take a wild imagination to envision these type of taxes being implemented in the next decade. They reflect real policies that are the goals of lefty statists, which is pretty much ALL Democrats these days, and the Supreme Court did just allow health care tyranny to stand. The "Tax Door" to compel behavior favored by nanny-state do-gooders has just been flung wide open. There is no escape.
To quote C.S. Lewis, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
The Supreme Court had a chance to stop this oppression on Thursday, to draw a clear line in the sand protecting individual sovereignty from a government that has grown far beyond its use or purpose. Justice Roberts blinked (or acquiesced to the Chicago Way) and they blew it. Soon, we will far outpace Europe in government expansion. Liberals are thrilled, since they wanted to be Europe all along. And it will bring with it European-style taxes, regulations, and crushing debt.
This week Americans learned, sadly, that there is no judicial branch willing to hold overreaching government in check, and as such there is no U.S. Constitution serving as a firewall to protect the people from lying, deceitful, power hungry tyrants. Of course we should defeat these statists at the ballot box. But sometimes we don't, sometimes foolish electorates fall for hopey-dopey sleight of hand and elect lawless politicians. In response, the Supreme Court has said,"Go pound sand."
History will not write favorably of this day when economic liberty was crushed and the Pursuit of Happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence was determined to only be a non-taxable, worthwhile pursuit if it was government-approved. Carry on then. Nothing to see here except a dying Republic.
True, the Affordable Care Act is chock full of taxes. Give Chief Justice John Roberts bonus points for noticing - even though he failed the test. How do you allow the government to tax someone for simply existing? How do you tax someone for their choice to not enter into a contract to participate in an activity? It's as if a painter shows up at your house and you say, "I don't want my house painted." And the painter says, "okay, we don't have to paint your house, but you'll have to pay the tax for us not painting your house."
Did America just adopt the Mafia's model of doing business?! It certainly appears that way.
This is more than a slippery slope towards state-controlled behavior; it's a steep cliff to tyranny. The fundamental balance between the government and the people just shifted dramatically - and its not in the favor of freedom.
A few ways progressive liberals may choose to apply the "non-compliance tax" in the future:
HOME SCHOOLING: If you choose to educate your child at home, the government could impose a tax for not participating in public education (on top of the taxes you already pay that end up in public schools). After all, they are writing these global warming curriculums and building new God-free schools to indoctrinate good little citizens. Who are you to think you know better?
PRE-K EDUCATION: Don't want to send your three or four year old to a government accredited pre-school? Fine, that's your choice as long as you don't mind paying the tax. But it's worth it, because you could never properly teach your child the values and skills they need at home - just ask Time Magazine.
NOT PARTICIPATING IN GREEN ENERGY: Don't have energy efficient appliances? Have yet to install new weatherstripping? Should they choose, the government can tax you now for not complying. Have you bought carbon offsets to make up for the amount of energy you use/waste? If you haven't and you aren't investing in solar panels (already subsidized by tax dollars), the government might impose a tax on you there, too. Do you have a thermostat that can be controlled by Al Gore's busybody bureaucrats from outside your home? Well then, I'm afraid we're going to have to tax you for non-compliance.
DRIVING A HYBRID: You don't have to buy a Chevy Volt or other money-sucking lemon called an electric car, but if you don't there could be a tax for that. Then when charging it in your garage starts to overload the electric grid, which will certainly be a taxable offense, the government can turn your "smart-energy" thermostat up to 84 degrees. Enjoy the summer because it's never been more enjoyable now that the government is looking out for you!
EXERCISE/DIET: Pandora's box is wide open. Every behavior you partake in is now being measured and controlled by the government to see how it affects health care costs, because let's face it, the government hates wasting money (sarcasm). They can tax literally everything they deem "unhealthy" - whether its activity or inactivity. So, for example, greasy foods and cheeseburgers get taxed. So does tobacco and alcohol - yes, even more than the current taxes. Don't exercise once a week or have a gym membership? The government can tax you for being a couch potato. And they can tax your TV, because TV leads to inactivity. Everything you do is now taxable under the guise of "protecting the common welfare."
Are these examples extreme or far fetched? Not at all. None of them will happen this year, but with tax-and-spend Democrats in control, it doesn't take a wild imagination to envision these type of taxes being implemented in the next decade. They reflect real policies that are the goals of lefty statists, which is pretty much ALL Democrats these days, and the Supreme Court did just allow health care tyranny to stand. The "Tax Door" to compel behavior favored by nanny-state do-gooders has just been flung wide open. There is no escape.
To quote C.S. Lewis, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
The Supreme Court had a chance to stop this oppression on Thursday, to draw a clear line in the sand protecting individual sovereignty from a government that has grown far beyond its use or purpose. Justice Roberts blinked (or acquiesced to the Chicago Way) and they blew it. Soon, we will far outpace Europe in government expansion. Liberals are thrilled, since they wanted to be Europe all along. And it will bring with it European-style taxes, regulations, and crushing debt.
This week Americans learned, sadly, that there is no judicial branch willing to hold overreaching government in check, and as such there is no U.S. Constitution serving as a firewall to protect the people from lying, deceitful, power hungry tyrants. Of course we should defeat these statists at the ballot box. But sometimes we don't, sometimes foolish electorates fall for hopey-dopey sleight of hand and elect lawless politicians. In response, the Supreme Court has said,"Go pound sand."
History will not write favorably of this day when economic liberty was crushed and the Pursuit of Happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence was determined to only be a non-taxable, worthwhile pursuit if it was government-approved. Carry on then. Nothing to see here except a dying Republic.
Friday, May 25, 2012
10 Reasons to Vote for Donna Campbell: UPDATED FOR RUN-OFF
I am a conservative who has lived in the senate district for most of my life. I believe we need a state senator who better reflects our values and isn't beholden to big money lobbyists. Here are ten reasons why I'm supporting Dr. Donna Campbell in the Republican Primary for Texas Senate. If you support Donna, I encourage you to copy and paste these to your blog and Get Out the Vote!
1. Dr. Donna Campbell is NOT a career politician. While her opponent has spent the past three decades in government, Dr. Campbell has spent the past 20 years in the emergency room and will bring that type of critical thinking to solve our state's challenges.
2. Donna Campbell is Pro-Life. She is the only candidate in this race endorsed by three Pro-Life groups. Her opponent received an F from Texas Right to Life and has repeatedly favored abortion-on-demand, including voting AGAINST the sonogram bill and AGAINST requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.
3. Donna Campbell is a constitutional conservative with an 'A' rating from the NRA. She will stand up for the first, second, and tenth amendment and against unconstitutional Washington D.C. power grabs. Her opponent once described himself as "a part-time constitutionalist."
4. Donna Campbell will fight for lower taxes and is the only candidate in this race who has signed a pledge NOT to raise taxes. She has also promised to reduce or eliminate the Margins Tax which penalizes Texas businesses. Her opponent voted for the Margins Tax and favors raising the gas tax to .50 cents per gallon and beyond (by tying it to inflation).
5. Donna Campbell will end the practice of taxpayer funded in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
6. Donna Campbell is the only anti-toll candidate in the race and the only Republican who has talked about auditing TxDOT so that taxdollars from Texas drivers actually go to fix our highways; not for trains and bike lanes. Jeff Wentworth voted to toll 281 and Loop 1604 as recently as June.
7. Dr. Donna Campbell is the only candidate with the medical qualifications to address ballooning health care costs and reform Medicaid, projected to eat up almost a third of the state's budget by 2030.
8. Donna Campbell received an A+ rating from the conservative Heritage Alliance. Incumbent Sen. Jeff Wentworth earned an 'F'.
9. Donna Campbell's donors are everyday citizens like you and me, while her opponent is funded by big money trial lawyers who have given money to Barack Obama. One group, TIR-PAC, has spent over $800,000 trying to buy this election for Jeff Wentworth.
10. Donna Campbell has run a positive, issues oriented campaign, as she promised. Jeff Wentworth broke his promise and has run negative attacks ads that even PolitiFact calls "ridiculous" and designates as "Pants on Fire" on their Truth-o-Meter.
On July 31st, I hope you will join me and other conservative neighbors who have endorsed Dr. Donna Campbell for her dedication to core conservative principles. If you are looking to vote your values, you won't find a better candidate. It has been an honor to volunteer for her campaign.
1. Dr. Donna Campbell is NOT a career politician. While her opponent has spent the past three decades in government, Dr. Campbell has spent the past 20 years in the emergency room and will bring that type of critical thinking to solve our state's challenges.
3. Donna Campbell is a constitutional conservative with an 'A' rating from the NRA. She will stand up for the first, second, and tenth amendment and against unconstitutional Washington D.C. power grabs. Her opponent once described himself as "a part-time constitutionalist."
4. Donna Campbell will fight for lower taxes and is the only candidate in this race who has signed a pledge NOT to raise taxes. She has also promised to reduce or eliminate the Margins Tax which penalizes Texas businesses. Her opponent voted for the Margins Tax and favors raising the gas tax to .50 cents per gallon and beyond (by tying it to inflation).
5. Donna Campbell will end the practice of taxpayer funded in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
7. Dr. Donna Campbell is the only candidate with the medical qualifications to address ballooning health care costs and reform Medicaid, projected to eat up almost a third of the state's budget by 2030.
8. Donna Campbell received an A+ rating from the conservative Heritage Alliance. Incumbent Sen. Jeff Wentworth earned an 'F'.
9. Donna Campbell's donors are everyday citizens like you and me, while her opponent is funded by big money trial lawyers who have given money to Barack Obama. One group, TIR-PAC, has spent over $800,000 trying to buy this election for Jeff Wentworth.
On July 31st, I hope you will join me and other conservative neighbors who have endorsed Dr. Donna Campbell for her dedication to core conservative principles. If you are looking to vote your values, you won't find a better candidate. It has been an honor to volunteer for her campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)